In the storm of controversy over the antiterrorism records of the Bush and Clinton administrations, the one thing for which everyone can be grateful is the quality of the referee who is handling the fight. The 9/11 Commission, formally titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is proving to be everything one could hope for in this delicate but critical role.

Created by Congress, with a chairman named by the president and members designated by party leaders on Capitol Hill, it has taken its responsibility to heart and, based on the record so far, may well apply some healing balm – as well as pointed findings and recommendations – for this divisive but vital issue.

It is well-staffed, but that also has been true of many other commissions whose members have shucked off their responsibility to the hired hands. What makes this commission impressive is the high degree of engagement that all 10 of its members are displaying – and the skills they are showing as they sort through the mass of data and opinion surrounding the question: Why were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so successful and how can similar calamities be prevented?

I took the time last week to read the transcript of the commission's hearings of March 23-24 and the texts of the four staff reports that served as the factual basis for its examination of senior officials of the last and current administrations.

While newspaper and television reports certainly hit the highlights of the testimony from the notable witnesses, what was not obvious from the coverage was the thoughtful and efficient way in which the commission made maximum use of its time.

Each set of witnesses was preceded by a staff member's summary of the factual record on the broad topic under discussion – diplomacy, military planning, intelligence, policy coordination. Fuller exposition of those records was made available to the public and news media in written reports, prepared under the direction of the executive director, the University of Virginia's Philip Zelikow. These reports are admirably direct and specific – and, contrary to the Washington custom of hiding behind anonymity, both the investigators whose work shaped the conclusions and most of their sources of information are identified by name.

For example, in the staff report on the military, one reads: "Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld . . . did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11, other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden. . . . The new administration began to develop new policies toward al-Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans against this enemy before September 11."

This staff work clearly has been absorbed by the commission members, whose questions have been focused and pertinent. Most congressional hearings are hampered by members' reading off questions handed to them by staffers, but being unable to ask intelligent follow-ups on their own. A five-minute rule on each round of questioning frustrates those few members who really have done their homework.

The 9/11 commission has avoided this trap. It designates one pair of questioners for each major witness, and gives each of them 15 minutes to examine. Then, each of the other members gets five minutes for follow-up.

The tone of seriousness and bipartisanship was established from the start by the character of the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana and one-time chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They came to the work with sterling reputations and clearly will enhance them by their handling of this investigation.

They are being ably seconded by the commission members. Several of them are among the sharpest lawyers in either party, men and women whose ability to unravel complex matters normally commands huge salaries. All of them are veterans of government, having served in either elective or appointive posts. They are neither intimidated nor inhibited in pressing witnesses for straight answers.

As might be expected, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who drove Bill Clinton crazy by his independence, is the most outspoken member – voicing his skepticism about the claims from officials of both administrations. But all of the commissioners are digging for realistic answers.

The commission is to report at the end of July, and its stated goal is to be unanimous in its findings and recommendations. If it can achieve that goal, it will have rendered the nation a great service.